Seems to me that our loveable landlords along Myddlleton Road are cranking up their activities again. Anybody who has been in the beer garden at The Step this weekend will have seen a huge "outbuilding" being erected a couple of doors down.  Completely new shop front has been put in at the old take-away near the junction of Marlborough Road and the Domipol supermarket that is totally at odds with the areas status as a conversation area.

My complaints to our ever so brilliant council have fallen on deaf ears and just wondered what other people think about it? Those of us who have lived in the area for some time will be well aware of the damage these illegal breaches of planning have caused to the area and may well share my concern.



Views: 5878

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There was a planning application 2 weeks ago for what was said to be '112A'.

There were many things wrong with this application - the first being that 112A is NOT the property that the application refered to.  The owner of 112A asked that the application for '112A' be removed from the list - and it appears to have been removed.

For further details of the application etc... you could read my objection letter here. 

A very odd one indeed

Planning application in for 100 Myddleton Road for "Change of use of existing ground floor shop and self contained two bedroom flat to three letting rooms and shared kitchen as a House in Multiple Occupation."


There's a second application in for the same property, with no supporting documentation


Am looking at 2293 properly now and it's fascinating. There's an extensive design statement which looks to address all possible issues re conservation area, living space etc.

However, it clearly states that the shop was converted to a residential studio without planning permission in 2009 and the permitted 2-bed flat at the rear was converted into 3 studios without planning permission in 2008. So, behind the shutters are 4 s/c studios (clearly shown on existing plan) where there should be an empty shop and 2 bed flat. 

This application is an attempt to get permission for the situation behind the shutters, albeit reducing units from 4 to 3. 

This is unbelievably infuriating! It is one of the "shops" opposite The Step and it is a classic example of everything that is wrong with the road. It would be interesting to hear from Haringey Planning department regarding the history of this property... I'm sure they have known about it...

This drawing makes me so cross! Tiny weeny flats.

Please can everyone comment on this application. We need to show the council and owners that we all care about the road and this sort of thing can't happen.

Is this the "shop" opposite you with shutters down, yet a woman lives in there? a window behind the " permanently closed shutters" shows you her walking around at night through the small window behind the shutters.i have been informed that she is regularly seen walking around naked, this is not acceptable

Yes that's the one. I don't really understand how the 'shop' can only be about 2 metres deep from the front or how that's been allowed to happen. Can't think of many shops that could function in that space! Gggrrrrr!

The Design and Access statement (scroll down to read it all) says it's been empty since 1999... I'm not surprised.

It states that 'no harm is caused to the vitality of the shopping centre by this proposal'... that is totally ridiculous as we all know that there are businesses looking for properties on this road but they can't find one. The Step along with a number of other long-standing businesses proves that you can run a successful business on the street.

I'm submitting my objection application for this as we speak.

Is there any chance of finding the proposed business owners wishing to open shops to attend the meeting so they can give their personal story of why permission to open a business here is not granted or why they're unable to find a suitable propoerty along here?
This application gives a blatant misrepresentation of the local residents living in the Bowes Park Conservation Area. This application, contravens the protection of local shops and does not comply with the DRAFT MYDDLETON ROAD LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE – PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE, the application states "no adverse affects on Bowes Park Conservation Area" !!

application originally refused Reference number hgy/2012/1747 application Refused - Certificate of lawfulness for use of property as 3 self contained studio flats. 1/11/2012

Cabinet considered a report that sought approval to go out to public consultation on the draft ‘Myddleton Road Local Shopping Centre – Planning Policy Guidance Note’.
This document set out the planning policies in relation to Myddleton Road and would be essential in guiding the: design, conversion and improvement of the shops and properties in this shopping parade. Cabinet members commended the guidance which was well written and they advocated a similar approach is undertaken in other conservation areas and small regeneration schemes.

i. That the draft ‘Myddleton Road Local Shopping Centre – Planning Policy Guidance Note’ as set out in Appendix 1 of the report be approved for public consultation.
ii. That the utilisation of the draft Planning Policy Guidance Note as an interim guide for planning and regeneration decisions on all planning applications prior to its full adoption be approved.

Proposals to change the use from existing Class A1 retail will be allowed provided that:
a) it can be demonstrated that there is no realistic prospect of the unit being used for A1 retail purposes in the foreseeable future;
b) individually or cumulatively the proposed use does not have an adverse effect on the vitality, viability or where appropriate predominately retail function; and
c) where applicable, the change of use does not result in a significant break in the continuity of retail frontage
6.37 According to the latest survey, the Borough's designated local shopping centres (LSC) vary in size from 4 to 146 units. Therefore, it is not appropriate to specify maximum and minimum figures regarding the number of shop and non-shop frontages within the centres. The local shopping centres are generally located in predominately residential areas and address the day to day retail needs, especially convenience goods, of local residents. In addition local shopping centres can provide a focal point for a local community, thus the Council will seek to maintain the commercial and community appearance and function of these units in the first instance. Within the identified local shopping centres, where appropriate at least 1 in every 3 frontages should fall within the A1 use class.

I reported this to enforcement/planning/MRSG in May 2012.  People had known about it for years but no-one had reported it.

Enforcement action was taken. They appealed.

It went to SAppeal at the Inspectorate.

The enforcement notice was 'quashed'

The Appeal decsion is here.  Do read.  It leaves the way open to Haringey to take new action... which they have taken.

The owner has Appealed again.

At the same time he has put in 2 different planning applications.

We must write:

1.  to the inspectorate about the appeal   details here

2 on planning app no 1    see Lindsey above

and 3 about planning app ,no 2.    ditto

 We really have to be strong and smart about this. The professional who is acting for the owner knows the street well, and has won a number of other cases over the years.  


Hi Caroline - could you copy in the details of the planning inspectorate so we all know where to write.. the link doesn't seem to work. Thanks!

Link works fine for me.....

but here is most of it


Town and Country Planning Act 1990


Location:             Site at 100 Myddleton Road, London, N22 8NQ

Breach:            Without planning permission, the material change of use of the ground floor to four self contained flats

Appeal by:            Subash Kantilal Mehta

Appeal Ref:             APP/Y5420/C/13/2207341

Start Date:             04 November 2013


I am writing to inform you that an appeal has been made to the Secretary of State in respect of the above site. The appeal is being made because the Council served an Enforcement Notice for the above development.  The appeal is to be decided by the Planning Inspectorate, a separate national body, on the basis of written statements that will be submitted by the Council and by the appellant.


If you wish to send your comments to the Planning Inspectorate so that they can be taken into account, please do so in writing to The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/26b, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN. Any comments you may have made to the Council at the planning application stage will be forwarded to the Inspectorate by the Council and they will be taken into account by the Inspector when deciding the appeal. If you do write to the Inspectorate, please include the appeal reference and send three copies within six weeks from the starting date shown above. If your letter is not received within this deadline it will not usually be seen by the Inspector and will be returned. You will only be informed of the result of this appeal if you write to the Planning Inspector at the above address and specifically request to be notified of the result.   


You can now view and comment on submitted appeals online through the Government’s Planning Portal website at Please search by only using the 7 digit number towards the end of the reference. You may obtain a copy of the booklet “Guide to taking part in planning appeals” from The Planning Inspectorate at the above address, or download it from the website at If you are not the owner of the property you occupy, perhaps you would be kind enough to bring this letter to their attention as they may also wish to make comments.

Have been looking at the past applications for no 100.

In 2000 Mr Mehta applied for residential use on the ground floor.  It was refused.  He appealed.

He won the Appeal, and got his permission for one, repeat one, flat on the ground floor.

The Appeal Decision of Feb 2001 is worth reading as it holds lessons we must learn, and things we can argue against in the current applications.  Attached here.   It is clear that the Inspector did not realise the applicant's reason for the layout of the proposed flat - it was probably so that it could be cut up into smaller units in the future without anyone knowing.

There should be one flat on the ground floor, plus the shop.  That is NOT what is there, nor even what the current applicant says is there.

How many flats of what sort exist on the upper floors is unknown.  It appears from the Appeal Decision that it was a single flat using the first and second floors.  May or may not be that now.



Connecting the communities of Bowes Park and Bounds Green in north London.

Featured Content

Elsewhere on the Web

Translate this website

© 2022   Created by Richard McKeever.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...